Research Journal of English Language and Literature (RJELAL) A Peer Reviewed (Refereed) International Journal
Impact Factor 6.8992 (ICI) http://www.rjelal.com; Email:[email protected] ISSN:2395-2636 (P); 2321-3108(O)
Vol.7.Issue 1. 2019 (Jan-Mar)
382 CHUNG YI CHENG
EFL Students’ In-Class Motivation toward Non-Native English Speaker Teacher and Native English Speaker Teacher
Chung Yi Cheng
Ph.D. Student in Department of English, National Changhua University of Education, No.1 Jinde Rd., Changhua City, Changhua County 500, Taiwan (R.O.C.)
Email: [email protected] https://doi.org/10.33329/rjelal.7119.382
ABSTRACT Students’ learning motivation is always the major topic being researched in the
language teaching and learning field. It is also one of the major factors in second
language learning. This study examined students’ learning motivation toward non-
native English speaker teacher (NNEST) and native English speaker teacher (NEST).
Students were divided into seven learner archetypes and their motivation
differences were investigated and discussed. During the process of investigation on
the in-class motivation, the assumptions which caused the changes were also
carried out. The result indicated all the students’ motivation went up during the
lectures and unmotivated students always started with a lower point in contrast
with highly motivated students. This study identified students’ in-class motivation
toward NEST and NNEST in an EFL context.
Keyword: In-Class motivation, Non-native English speaker teacher, Native English
speaker teacher
.
Introduction
Motivation
Numerous studies have been conducted to
investigate second language learners’ motivation.
Gardner and Lambert (1972) probably are the
earliest ones who had discussions on the factors.
The socio-psychological theory of L2 is brought up
and the individual differences are explained and
discussed in second language learning. Gardner has
identified two types of motivation which are
instrumental and integrative motivation. As Law
(1999) sited, “Learners with strong integrative
orientation tend to be motivated by a desire to
understand the culture of the target language and
want to interact with people of the target
language.” On the other hand, “Learners with strong
instrumental orientation tend to be motivated by
more pragmatic motives such as passing
examinations or finding good jobs.” (Law, 1999, p.
8). Learners with different motivation have their
own goals to achieve. Dornyei (1994) has developed
an extended framework in the motivation field. He
introduced three levels in motivation which are
language level, learner level and learning situation
level. However, he did not further explain the
relationships between the components. The Self-
Determination Theory (SDT) was evolved in the
1970s and it was until mid-1980, the SDT was
formally introduced. Deci et al. (1985) made the
distinction between different types of motivation
and they distinguished intrinsic and extrinsic
motivation. They indicated, “…intrinsic motivation,
which refers to doing something because it is
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Research Journal of English Language and Literature (RJELAL) A Peer Reviewed (Refereed) International Journal
Impact Factor 6.8992 (ICI) http://www.rjelal.com; Email:[email protected] ISSN:2395-2636 (P); 2321-3108(O)
Vol.7.Issue 1. 2019 (Jan-Mar)
383 CHUNG YI CHENG
inherently interesting or enjoyable, and extrinsic
motivation, which refers to doing something
because it leads to a separable outcome.” (Ryan et
al., 2000, p. 55). Previous studies indicated the
varieties of motivation and also signified the
contribution to second language learning.
NESTs and NNESTs
Native English speaker teachers (NESTs) and
non-native English speaker teachers (NNSTs) are
always being compared in the field of language
teaching. Merino (1997) argued the stereotype
which a native speaker is the best person to teach
his or her foreign language. He followed Medgyes’ 3-
dimensional frameworks which are native/non-
native, non-native/non-native and native/native
(Merino, p69). The result of the study indicated that
both NSTs and NNST have their own strength and
weakness. As Ma (2012) indicated, in the workforce
worldwide, there are nearly three-quarters of the
ESL (English as a second language) or EFL (English as
a foreign language) teachers are NNESTs. She
examined the strengths and weaknesses of NNESTs
and NESTs by adopting mixed methods and found
out that NNESTs have pedagogical strengths and
linguistic weakness. On the other hand, NESTs have
linguistic strengths, but pedagogical weakness. The
Students’ perception and attitude toward NESTs and
NNESTs are different since the differences of the
cultural backgrounds. Law (1999) conducted a study
with having both NESTs and NNSTs teach in the
classroom context, she found that most of the
students (low achievers) were generally motivated
and found the class enjoyable in the class with
NESTs. However, it doesn’t mean NESTs are better
than NNSTs. They have their own strength and
weakness throughout the teaching process. Sahin
(2005) examined learners’ attitude and motivation
toward native speaker teachers of English in a
Turkish setting. The results indicated that learners
tended to have a more positive attitude and
motivation towards target language when they were
exposed to native English speaker teachers.
Walkinshaw et al. (2014) examined students’
perception toward native and non-native English
language teachers in Vietnamese and Japanese
context. The participants were university students in
Vietnam and Japan. In the study, authors particularly
looked at the advantages and disadvantages that
students identified when they participated in the
experiment. The results indicated that both NESTs
and NNESTs have their own advantages and
disadvantages. As for NESTs, students found they
were poor at explaining grammar and the tension
was created because of cultural differences;
however, they were considered as the models of
pronunciation. As for the NNESTs, students thought
that it was easier to interact with them since they
shared the same culture. NNESTs were also good at
explaining grammar when contrasted with NESTs;
however, their pronunciation was concerned. Both
NESTs and NNESTs have their own strength and
weakness. It depends on learners’ proficiency and
how they approach in the classroom. Alseweed
(2012) conducted a study in reporting university
students’ perception of NESTs and NNESTs in the
English language classroom. Qualitative and
quantitative methods were used to collect data and
the results revealed that higher level students
showed more preference toward NESTs and their
previous experiences on learning language might
affect their preferences toward NESTs and NNESTs.
As for the NESTs, students found they were better in
adopting different teaching strategies. On the other
hand, learners showed favorable attitudes toward
NNESTs since they could provide a serious learning
environment and also response to learners’ needs.
Students’ perception of NESTs and NNESTs might be
different based on what they need. Cheung et al.
(2007) also examined university students’ attitude
toward NNSETs. A questionnaire and interviews
were used in the experiment in order to collect data.
They found that students showed a positive attitude
toward NNSETs. The NNSETs’ strengths are pointed
out as “ability to use students’ mother tongue in
teaching, effective pedagogical skills, knowledgeable
in English language, positive personality traits, and
examination-oriented teaching approach” (Cheung
et al., 2007, p. 265). In contrast, there are some
shortcomings such as “over-correcting students’
work and limited use of English” were indicated by
the participants in the study. As the authors
revealed, NNESTs had their own strengths and
weaknesses in teaching language and learners’
attitude toward them is positive. Tsou (2013)
Research Journal of English Language and Literature (RJELAL) A Peer Reviewed (Refereed) International Journal
Impact Factor 6.8992 (ICI) http://www.rjelal.com; Email:[email protected] ISSN:2395-2636 (P); 2321-3108(O)
Vol.7.Issue 1. 2019 (Jan-Mar)
384 CHUNG YI CHENG
explored university students’ perceptions toward
NESTs and NNESTs in EFL contexts in Taiwan. She
conducted the experiment by using both qualitative
and quantitative methods. The results showed that
students’ preferences toward NESTs are better than
NNESTs; however, the participants believed that
both NESTs and NNESTs have their own strengths
and weaknesses in English instruction. She indicated
NESTs were superior in their good English
proficiency and also their ability in helping students’
English learning. As for NNESTs, they had a better
understanding of students’ learning difficulties and
also they have the advantage of communicating in
the first language. The participants thought that
NESTs were more difficult to communicate with and
NNESTs’ English proficiency is limited. The author
revealed that NESTs and NNESTs work cooperatively
can create an effective English learning environment
for language learners. Chang (2010) conducted a
study on Taiwanese elementary students’
motivation toward learning English in English Village
Program. One of the research questions is about
students’ learning motivation toward the native
English-speaking teacher’s instruction. As the result
showed that a large number of students who
participated in the program thought that they were
motivated by the native English speaker teacher’s
teaching style and their standard pronunciation.
Purpose
Previous studies have shown learners’
perceptions and attitudes toward native and non-
native English language teachers; however, only a
few studies have been conducted in motivation
toward native English speaker teachers or non-
native English speaker teachers. Since there are
more and more NESTs come to Taiwan to teach
English, students’ motivation toward learning
English with a NEST or NNEST is needed to be
considered. Parents in Taiwan always think that a
school with foreign teachers or NESTs is better since
they are native speakers; they can teach and handle
the English classes better. Some parents think that
when their children are taught by the NESTs, their
motivation will be higher and are willing to learn
English. Luo (2007) refers to Lin’s (2001) study and
indicated that the students who just enrolled in the
NEST program became more interested in English
learning. However, students’ in class motivation
hasn’t been investigated. Some students tended to
be more motivated when NESTs teach the class, but
some of them were not. This study is going to
investigate students’ in class motivation when a
NEST and a NNEST enrolled in teaching the class.
Research Question
1. What is students’ in-class motivation in NEST’s
and NNEST’s classes?
2. How is the motivation differing between 7
learner archetypes?
3. What are the assumptions caused the changes
in their in-class motivation?
Methodology
Participants
12 elementary school students (four boys and
seven girls) participated in the study. Four in the 5th
grade, seven in the 4th
grade, and one in the 2nd
grade. Their English proficiency was tested through
the in-class examination on all four skills of English
(Listening, Reading, Writing, and Speaking). Their
average scores were based on the previous level’s
examinations. Participants were categorized into
seven different archetypes based on Chan et al.
(2015) study in learner archetypes. They invited a
group of teachers to identify the seven salient
learner archetypes among the students in the study.
The students were between years 7 to 9 and were
categorized into seven different archetypes and
used a retrodictive qualitative modeling approach in
order to study L2 motivation. Since one of the
purposes to conduct this study is to examine the
motivation differences between each kind of learner
archetypes. The categorization was done throughout
the discussion between 3 teachers. All three
teachers have taught the students for at least half a
year and they know the students’ behavior and
proficiency well. Seven learner archetypes were
listed in Table. 1
Research Journal of English Language and Literature (RJELAL) A Peer Reviewed (Refereed) International Journal
Impact Factor 6.8992 (ICI) http://www.rjelal.com; Email:[email protected] ISSN:2395-2636 (P); 2321-3108(O)
Vol.7.Issue 1. 2019 (Jan-Mar)
385 CHUNG YI CHENG
Table 1 Seven learner archetypes
Types Name
(1) A highly competitive and motivated student, with some negative
emotions.
Eric
(2) An unmotivated student with lower-than-average English proficiency Wendy
(3) A happy-go-lucky student with low English proficiency Diego
(4) A mediocre student with little L2 motivation Shirleen, Jeff, Ryan, Angela
(5) A motivated yet distressed student with low English proficiency Bella
(6) A ‘perfect’ English learner Wiwi, Lora, Joanne
(7) An unmotivated student with poor English proficiency Candy
Instructional tool
Two instruments were used to measure the
participants’ in-class motivation. ‘Motometer’, a
classroom observation form which was adopted
from Waninge et al. (2014) was used in the
experiment. They followed the example of a
longitudinal classroom study by Garnder et al.
(2004). The Motometer contains ten real-time
motivation measurements and each class session
was about 60 minutes. Participants need to rate
their own motivation every 6 minutes by drawing a
horizontal line. The Motometer is a thermometer-
shaped figure and it shows “0” as the lowest and
“100” as the highest points. Participants would rate
their own motivation based on two questions
related to their learning motivation. One is “How
much effort do I want to put into learning the
material right now?” and the other is “How much do
I enjoy this lesson right now?” (Waninge et al., 2014,
p.723). The questions were translated into Chinese
since all of the participants are elementary school
students. They need L1 in helping them understand
the details in doing the experiment. At the bottom
of the A4 paper, participants could leave any
comments regarding the experiment. A short in-
class interview will be conducted at the end of each
session to investigate the possible variables that
affect their motivation. Participants who left
comments or had questions would be the priority in
doing the interview. The interview lasted about 3 to
5 minutes.
Procedures
This study is designed to measure students’
motivation toward NEST and NNEST. 12 students
and 3 teachers participated in the experiment. First,
students were categorized into 7 archetypes based
on their learning behavior and proficiency by three
teachers. Second, Students were asked to complete
two A4 papers which contained a ‘Motometer’
separately. They finished one ‘Motometer’ in the
lesson which was instructed by a NEST and the other
with a NNEST. The A4 papers were collected at the
end of each lesson and the data were analyzed in
order to investigate their motivation in a particular
lesson. The curriculum plans for both lessons from
NEST and NNEST are provided in the appendix B.
Basically; both lessons were reviewing the materials
which were taught in the previous lessons. Before
participants did the Motometer, they had training
on how to do the Motometer in the correct way
since they are still elementary school students. They
needed to understand that when they drew a line, it
indicated his or her motivation at that moment.
Third, a few participants were chosen in doing the
short in-class interview. Finally, all the data from the
Motometer and a short interview was collected and
analyzed for the study.
Results
Motivation in NEST’s Class
12 participants had done their Motometer
during the experiment and they understood that
they were responsible for rating their own in-class
motivation at the moment when a NEST gave
lectures in the classroom. The data from Motometer
is presented as figures in order to have a clear view
of the motivational progression of different types of
participants.
Research Journal of English Language and Literature (RJELAL) A Peer Reviewed (Refereed) International Journal
Impact Factor 6.8992 (ICI) http://www.rjelal.com; Email:[email protected] ISSN:2395-2636 (P); 2321-3108(O)
Vol.7.Issue 1. 2019 (Jan-Mar)
386 CHUNG YI CHENG
Figure 1: A motivated yet distressed student with
low English proficiency
Figure 2: An unmotivated student with lower-than-
average English proficiency
Figure 3: A happy-go-lucky student with low English
proficiency
Figure 4: An unmotivated student with poor English
proficiency
As Figures 1, 2, and 3 showed, the
participants’ motivation went up toward the end of
the class and two differences are shown in Figures 1
to 4. Candy was categorized as an unmotivated
student and her English proficiency tended to be
lower than other students. Figure 4 shows that her
motivation was very low at the beginning of the
lecture in comparing with other participants.
However, her motivation slightly went up and it
reached around 75 at the end of the class. Her
motivation was still lower than average. Wendy is
another participant who was also categorized as an
unmotivated student. Her motivation slightly went
down and reached the lowest point around 42
minutes. It suddenly went up because she was doing
a review game and she has understood the sentence
patterns well. As an unmotivated student, she does
not like to participate in the activities during class
time because she gets nervous easily and she did
not want to prepare for it. Wendy’s motivation
dropped down at the end of the class because she
was punished by the teacher. She was arguing with
another classmate, Eric.
Figure 5: A highly competitive and motivated
student, with some negative emotions.
Figure 6: A ‘perfect’ English learner
Research Journal of English Language and Literature (RJELAL) A Peer Reviewed (Refereed) International Journal
Impact Factor 6.8992 (ICI) http://www.rjelal.com; Email:[email protected] ISSN:2395-2636 (P); 2321-3108(O)
Vol.7.Issue 1. 2019 (Jan-Mar)
387 CHUNG YI CHENG
Figures 5 and 6 indicated four highly
motivated participants. Eric, Wiwi, and Lora showed
steady motivation from the beginning to the end of
the lecture. By looking at Joanne, her motivation
started much lower in comparing with other three
highly motivated students. However, her motivation
started to go up around 42 minutes and reached the
same point as the other three participants at the
end. In the short interview, she explained that she
forgot to review the vocabulary from previous, so
she was afraid of participating in the vocabulary
games. However, she was good at the sentence
patterns and started to get confident in answering
the questions.
Figure 7: A mediocre student with little L2
motivation
Figure 7 indicated the mediocre students with
little motivation. Jeff’s motivation was unstable; it
went up and down during the lecture. One possible
reason is that he was talking to his classmates all the
time even after the teacher warned him not to
interrupt other classmates. He still attempted to talk
with other classmates. As a mediocre student with
little motivation, he needs to pay more attention to
the materials and lectures. Shirleen, who is the
youngest participant, is a special case in the
experiment. After I explained the procedures of
doing the Motometer and did the training with all
the participants. She still rated her motivation as
100 throughout the whole period. While we were
doing a short interview, she told me that she rated
her motivation as 100 because she felt her
motivation was always high. She was eager to
answer questions and participant in the activities.
The reason that teachers put her as a mediocre
student with little motivation is that she is
motivated during class time, but she has little
motivation in doing reviews or even homework at
home. The result of her motivational progression
may due to her age since she is too young to
participate in the experiment. However, the
motivational progression of Shirleen may reflect on
Students’ learning motivation. Elementary school
students start to have English lessons after they get
to the third grade. In this case, they will have English
tests and homework. Some students will feel
stressful since English is not just a language to them
now. It becomes a subject that they need to study.
At this moment, they will think that learning English
is not fun anymore. Shirleen who is a second grader
does not have any English lesson at school yet, so
she thinks it is fun to attend the class and join the
activities. It is possible to examine Shirleen’s
motivational progression after she gets to the third
grade.
Figure 8: Motivational Progression of all the participants toward NEST.
Research Journal of English Language and Literature (RJELAL) A Peer Reviewed (Refereed) International Journal
Impact Factor 6.8992 (ICI) http://www.rjelal.com; Email:[email protected] ISSN:2395-2636 (P); 2321-3108(O)
Vol.7.Issue 1. 2019 (Jan-Mar)
388 CHUNG YI CHENG
Figure 8 indicated, most of the students’
motivation went up except Wendy and Eric. As
mentioned above, Wendy and Eric were arguing at
the end of the lecture and both of them were
punished by the teacher, so their motivation went
down. Candy’s motivation was expected by the
teachers since she did not have any motivation in
participating in the lecture. In contrast with other
classmates, most of the participants’ motivation was
high and stable which indicate that they enjoy the
class with a native English Speaker teacher.
Motivation in NNEST’s Class
Motivational progression of the
participants toward NNEST’s class was also put into
figures to indicate the data clearly as following
pages:
Figure 9: A motivated yet distressed student with
low English proficiency
Figure 10:An unmotivated student with lower-than-
average English proficiency
Figure 11: A happy-go-lucky student with low
English proficiency
Figure 12: An unmotivated student with poor English
proficiency
Figures 9 to 12 represent students with low
English motivation and even unmotivated. Their
English proficiency tends to be low and some of
them struggled in learning English. In comparing
Diego and Bella with Wendy and Candy, their
motivation started around 80, but as for
unmotivated students, their motivation started
lower as 35 and 70. As the figures indicated, most of
the students’ motivation moved upward toward the
end of the class except Wendy. Figure 2 showed
there are two drop points on her motivational
progression. After the short interview was
conducted, she mentioned that she did not
memorize the vocabulary, so her motivation went
down when the teacher was reviewing the
vocabulary. Her motivation dropped again around
43 minutes because she had a vocabulary quiz and
she hesitated when she was doing it. As for Candy,
she was aware that the teacher was going to give
the class a vocabulary test and her mother helped
her review the vocabulary. Being unmotivated
students, preparation before the class can still
enhance their learning motivation.
Research Journal of English Language and Literature (RJELAL) A Peer Reviewed (Refereed) International Journal
Impact Factor 6.8992 (ICI) http://www.rjelal.com; Email:[email protected] ISSN:2395-2636 (P); 2321-3108(O)
Vol.7.Issue 1. 2019 (Jan-Mar)
389 CHUNG YI CHENG
Figure 13: A highly competitive and motivated
student, with some negative emotions.
Figure 14: A ‘perfect’ English learner
Figure 13 and 14 showed highly motivated
students’ motivational progression. All the students’
motivation smoothly moved upward and reached
their highest point in the lecture. During the short
interview, Joanne told the teacher that she needs to
get ready for the class every time when she has an
English class. She gets nervous at the beginning and
felt confident at the ending of the lecture. The
teacher noticed Joanne is a ‘perfect’ English learner
and she always does assignments such as workbook
and grammar practice very carefully. Since she is a
careful learner, she always starts with a lower
motivation and when she gets confident, her
motivation moves upward.
Figure 15: A mediocre student with little L2 motivation
Figure 15 shows the mediocre students’
motivational progression. As discussed above in
NEST’s class, Jeff was still lack of his concentration
during the class time. He liked to chat with
classmates and was always notified by the teacher.
Shirleen still showed her high motivation when she
attended the class. She raised her hand to answer
the questions and was always ready to participant in
the activities. Angela’s motivation dropped
dramatically at around 30 minutes when she was
told that they would have a vocabulary quiz later.
She got nervous and did not pay any attention. In
the short interview, she told the teacher that she
was nervous even though the teacher just helped
them review the vocabulary. She wanted to take out
the vocabulary list and memorize them again
because she did not want to have a make-up quiz.
Angela is a nice student; however, she dropped out
of the class once because she did not want to do any
homework and exam. She thought it was too
stressful to do them. After a few months later, she is
ready to come back to the class, but she still gets
nervous when there is an exam.
Research Journal of English Language and Literature (RJELAL) A Peer Reviewed (Refereed) International Journal
Impact Factor 6.8992 (ICI) http://www.rjelal.com; Email:[email protected] ISSN:2395-2636 (P); 2321-3108(O)
Vol.7.Issue 1. 2019 (Jan-Mar)
390 CHUNG YI CHENG
Figure 16: Motivational Progression of all the participants toward NNEST.
Figure 16 shows the motivational progression
of all the participants and most students’ motivation
moved upward and reached their highest point
except Jeff. Since he always interrupted other
classmates during the lecture, he was the last one to
get the communicate book sighed. Furthermore,
figure 8 shows that four students include Bella,
Diego, Wendy, and Candy who were categorized as
low motivation and unmotivated students started
the class with lower motivation in contrast with
other classmates. As for other participants, their
motivation is around 80 to 100 which indicate that
they enjoyed the class and wanted to put more
effort into participating in the activities.
Discussion
The results from both NEST’s and NNEST’s
class were indicated through the figures. To answer
the first research question, most students’ in-class
motivation went up toward the end of the lectures
in both classes. It means that participants enjoyed
the lectures and wanted to put effort on what they
were doing. Except for some students such as
Wendy, Angela, and Joanne, they got nervous easily
or felt hesitated during the lessons. They want to be
prepared before they take any quiz or start class. As
for the second research question, the figures show
that most of the participants’ motivation smoothly
went up especially those who were categorized as
higher motivation ones. The rate of their motivation
increased from around 80 to above 90 out of 100
which indicate that they were motivated in the
lectures. The same situation occurred in both NEST’s
and NNEST’s class. Students showed their interests
and enjoyed the lectures given by both NEST and
NNEST. Since there were a lot of variables affected
students’ in-class motivation, the third research
question is hard to answer. According to the short
interviews, students explained that their motivation
was affected by their emotion toward the activities.
They got nervous or felt unprepared when they
knew there was going to be a vocabulary quiz. Also,
they did not pay attention to the activities or
interrupted by other classmates. All these
assumptions affected their motivation in the class.
One of the ‘perfect’ students made a comment
about her motivation toward the activities in NEST’s
class. She wrote, “I wanted to participant in the
activities, but the teacher always play the same
game and I did not want to compete with other
classmates anymore.” Another unmotivated student
wrote, “I like to have the class with NEST because I
do not need to worry about doing homework and I
also can play games all the time. I can compete with
my classmates and even though I sometimes cannot
finish the sentences, the teacher will help me.”
Some limitation such as the size of the participant,
the length of the experiment, and the design of the
interview of the study can be identified. Since there
were only 12 students participated in the
Research Journal of English Language and Literature (RJELAL) A Peer Reviewed (Refereed) International Journal
Impact Factor 6.8992 (ICI) http://www.rjelal.com; Email:[email protected] ISSN:2395-2636 (P); 2321-3108(O)
Vol.7.Issue 1. 2019 (Jan-Mar)
391 CHUNG YI CHENG
experiment, the results cannot represent for all the
elementary students. The number of participants
can be expanded in further study. The length of the
experiment can also be expanded to a semester or
even a year-long study. In this case, researchers may
be able to understand students’ motivational
progression toward more specific assumptions. They
can even compare and contrast the differences
between the students. Last, the design of the
interview can be changed into a more detailed
interview. Teachers can prepare some questions
regarding students’ motivation and ask the
participant to answer. By doing it, researchers may
find the differences or similarities in students.
Conclusion
This study helps the researcher to understand
learners’ in-class motivation toward NEST and
NNEST. By dividing students into different types, the
researcher can easily understand the motivational
differences between them. The comments made by
students and the thoughts from the interview
helped the instructors understand students′ needs
and the criteria that could be adjusted in the class.
Even though the study did not show impressive
results, it helps the instructors realize that learners′
motivation toward NEST and NNEST are high and
they want to put more effort into the class. Even
unmotivated students′ motivation grew during the
lecture and it means their learning motivation can
be triggered at some points. Instructors can take
advantages to help students in increasing their
motivation during class time. When students’
motivation increased, their learning efficiency will
become better, then teachers only need to worry
about the ways of keeping students with high
learning motivation.
References:
Alseweed, M. A., (2012). University Students’
Perceptions of the Influence of Native
and Non-native Teachers. English
Language Teaching, 5(12), 42-53.
Chang, W. Y., (2010) Taiwanese Elementary
Students’ Motivation and Attitudes toward
Learning English in English Village Program
in Kaohsiung County. (Doctoral
dissertation, Alliant International
University, 2010)
Domyei, Z. (1994). Motivation and motivating in the
foreign language classroom. Modern
Language Journal, 78,273-84.
Cheung, Y. L., & Braine G., (2007). The Attitudes of
University Students towards Non-
native Speakers English Teachers in Hong
Kong. RELC Journal, 38. 257-277.
Domyei, Z. (1994). Motivation and motivating in the
foreign language classroom. Modern
Language Journal, 78, 273-84.
Gardner, R. C. & Lambert, W. E. (1972). Attitudes
and Motivation in Second Language
Learning. Newbury House: Rowley.
Law, W. K., (1999). Students’ perception of the NET
(native English speaking teacher) in
motivating students to learn English: a case
study in a band 5 school. (Doctoral
dissertation, University of Hong Kong,
1999)
Luo, W. H., (2006) Collaboration between Native and
Non-native English-Speaking Teachers: How
Does It Work? The Journal of Asia TEFL,
3(3), 41-58.
Merino, I. G., (1997). Native English-Speaking
Teachers versus Non-Native English-
speaking Teachers. Revista Alicantina de
Estudios Ingleses, 10, 69-79.
Ma, L. P. F., (2012). Strengths and weaknesses of
NESTs and NNESTs: Perception of NNESTs
in Hong Kong. Linguistics and Education, 23,
1-15.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L., (2000). Intrinsic and
Extrinsic Motivations: Classic Definitions
and New Directions. Contemporary
Educational Psychology, 25, 54-67.
Sahin, I., (2005) The Effect of Native Speaker
Teachers of English on the Attitude
andAchievement of Learners. Journal of
Language and Linguistic Studies, 1(1),
29-42.
Tsou, S. Y., (2013). Taiwanese University Students’
Perceptions toward Native and Non-
Native English Speaking Teachers in EFL
Contexts. (Doctoral Dissertation, Texas A
& M University, 2013)
Research Journal of English Language and Literature (RJELAL) A Peer Reviewed (Refereed) International Journal
Impact Factor 6.8992 (ICI) http://www.rjelal.com; Email:[email protected] ISSN:2395-2636 (P); 2321-3108(O)
Vol.7.Issue 1. 2019 (Jan-Mar)
392 CHUNG YI CHENG
Walkinshaw, I. & Oanh, D. H., (2014). Native and
Non-Native English Language Teachers:
Student Perceptions in Vietnam and Japan.
SAGE Open, 1-9
APPENDIX A
Motometer
Rate your learning motivation, considering 請ㄑㄧㄥˇ 評ㄆ
ㄧㄥˊ 估ㄍ
ㄨ 自ㄗˋ 己ㄐㄧˇ 的
˙
ㄉㄜ 學ㄒ
ㄩㄝˊ 習ㄒ
ㄧˊ 動ㄉㄨㄥˋ 機ㄐ
ㄧ
How much effort do I want to put into learning the material now?
現ㄒㄧㄢˋ 在ㄗ
ㄞˋ 我ㄨㄛˇ 想ㄒ
ㄧㄤˇ 要ㄧ
ㄠˋ 多ㄉㄨㄛ 努ㄋ
ㄨˇ 力ㄌㄧˋ 來ㄌ
ㄞˊ 學ㄒㄩㄝˊ 習ㄒ
ㄧˊ 教ㄐㄧㄠˋ 材ㄘ
ㄞˊ 內ㄋㄟˋ 容ㄖ
ㄨㄥˊ ?
How much do I enjoy this lesson right now?
現ㄒㄧㄢˋ 在ㄗ
ㄞˋ 我ㄨㄛˇ 有ㄧ
ㄡˇ 多ㄉㄨㄛ 喜ㄒ
ㄧˇ 歡ㄏㄨㄢ 這ㄓ
ㄜˋ 次ㄘˋ 的
˙
ㄉㄜ課ㄎ
ㄜˋ 程ㄔㄥˊ ?
◎ 0為ㄨㄟˊ 完ㄨ
ㄢˊ 全ㄑㄩㄢˊ 不ㄅ
ㄨˋ 願ㄩㄢˋ 意ㄧˋ ,100為ㄨ
ㄟˊ 完ㄨㄢˊ 全ㄑ
ㄩㄢˊ 願ㄩ
ㄢˋ 意ㄧˋ ,請ㄑㄧㄥˇ 用ㄩ
ㄥˋ 鉛ㄑㄧㄢ筆ㄅ
ㄧˇ 畫ㄏㄨㄚˋ 出ㄔ
ㄨ您ㄋㄧㄣˊ 為ㄨ
ㄟˊ 自ㄗˋ 己ㄐㄧˇ 的
˙
ㄉㄜ評ㄆ
ㄧㄥˊ 分ㄈ
ㄣ。
100
0
100
0
100
0
100
0
100
0
100
0
100
0
100
0
100
0
100
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Comments (對ㄉㄨㄟˋ 於ㄩˊ 本ㄅ
ㄣˇ 堂ㄊㄤˊ 課ㄎ
ㄜˋ 和ㄏㄜˊ 本ㄅ
ㄣˇ 測ㄘㄜˋ 試ㄕˋ 的
˙
ㄉㄜ意ㄧˋ 見ㄐ
ㄧㄢˋ ):
Research Journal of English Language and Literature (RJELAL) A Peer Reviewed (Refereed) International Journal
Impact Factor 6.8992 (ICI) http://www.rjelal.com; Email:[email protected] ISSN:2395-2636 (P); 2321-3108(O)
Vol.7.Issue 1. 2019 (Jan-Mar)
393 CHUNG YI CHENG
Appendix B
Lesson Plan from Non-native English Speaker Teacher’s Class
1. Review Way To Go sentence patterns and vocabulary with games
2. Review phonics rules
3. Vocabulary quiz.
4. Explaining and practicing grammar focus
5. Sighing communication books and listening to workbook CD.
(20 minutes)
(15 minutes)
(10 minutes)
(10 minutes)
(5 minutes)
Lesson Plan from Native English Speaker Teacher’s Class
1. Review Way To Go vocabulary with games
2. Review Way To Go sentence patterns with games
3. Sighing communication books
(20 minutes)
(35 minutes)
(5 minutes)